Letters  of  Thomas  J.  Durant  to  the 
Hon.  Henry  Winter  Davis 


Thomas  J.  Durant 


George  Washington  Flower 
Memorial  Collection 

DUKE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 

ESTABLISHED  BY  THE 
FAMILY  OF 
COLONEL  FLOWERS 


Digitized  by 

the  Internet  Archive 

in  2015 

https://archive.org/details/letterofthomasjd1864dura 


L  E  T  T  E  E 


OF 


THOMAS  J.  DURANT 


TO  THE 


I  Hon.  HENRY  WINTER  DAVIS. 


X£W  ORLEANS: 

PRINTED  BY  H.  P.  LATHROP,  19  COMMERCIAL  PLACE. 
1864. 


THE  ROWERS  COLLECTION 

New  Orleans,  27th.  October,  1864. 

To  the  Hon.  Henry  Winter  Davis, 

House  of  Representatives, 

Washington  City,  D.  C, 

Dear  Sir  : 

The  letter  addressed  to  Hon.  J.  H.  Lane,  U.  S.  Senator  from 
Kansas,  which  appeared  in  the  New  Orleans  papers  of  the  24th 
September  last,  signed  by  Major  General  N.  P.  Banes,  has,  no 
doubt,  received  a  full  share  of  your  attention. 

The  reputation  which  Gen.  Banks  brought  with  him  to  Louis- 
iana for  statesmanship  and  administrative  ability,  gives  to  all  he  says 
on  civil  matters,  here,  a  claim  to  respectful  consideration  ;  while  his 
character  as  a  gentleman,  repels  the  idea  that  he  has  in  any  instance, 
or  in  any  degree,  in  the  course  of  his  communication,  been  led  into 
wilful  misrepresentation.  He  has,  however,  in  my  opinion,  fallen  into 
some  essential  errors  of  fact  and  law,  which,  in  the  most  respectful 
manner,  as  a  citizen  of  Louisiana,  it  becomes  my  duty  to  point  out. 

The  letter  to  Senator  Lane  treats  of  "  the  Reconstruction  Bill"  which 
passed  both  houses  of  Congress  at  the  last  session  :  seeks  to  show 
"its  agreement  with  the  new  Louisiana  Constitution,"  and  enters 
into  a  defense  of  the  Louisiana  elections  held  under  his  orders. 

The  act  of  Congress  for  guaranteeing  republican  government  to  the 
States  declared  to  be  in  insurrection  against  the  United  States,  was 
inferior  in  importance  to  no  measure  that  has  ever  been  considered  in 
the  national  councils.  Its  immediate  relation  to  the  rebellion,  its 
effectual  scheme  for  permanently  removing  the  curse  of  slavery, 
together  with  the  exalted  patriotism  and  ability  of  its  authors,  had 
made  a  deep  and  general  impression  upon  the  mind  of  the  nation. 


320329 


2  Letter  of  Thomas  J.  Durant 


The  bill  was  reported  to  the  House  of  Representatives  early  in 
April  last,  was  fully  debated  there,  and  passed  on  the  4th  of  May. 
It  was  reported  to  the  Senate  on  the  21th  of  May,  debated  there,  and 
finally  passed  as  it  came  from  the  House,  on  the  2d  of  July. 

On  the  eighth  day  of  July,  the  President  published  his  well  known 
proclamation  with  regard  to  this  bill,  annexing  thereto  a  copy  of  the 
act  in  full.  This  proclamation  was  received  in  New  Orleans  by  the 
19th  of  July,  when  the  Constitutional  Convention  elected  under  Gen- 
eral Orders  No.  35,  from  the  Head  Quarters  of  the  Department  of  the 
Gulf,  was  in  session,  and  we  are  told  "  that  the  proclamation  of  the 
President,  and  the  protest  of  the  Hon.  Messrs.  Wade  and  Davis, 
relating  to  this  measure,  attracted  general  attention  here"  ;  which 
indeed  could  scarcely  have  been  otherwise,  as  the  bill  was  an  au- 
thoritative condemnation  by  the  only  branch  of  the  Government 
invested  with  power  over  the  subject,  by  the  Constitution,  of  all  that 
the  Major  General  commanding  the  Department  was  then  engaged  in, 
so  far  as  the  reorganization  of  civil  government  was  concerned,  though 
until  recently,  before  the  24th  of  the  following  September,  he  had 
"  not  had  an  opportunity  to  examine  the  bill  passed  at  the  late  session 
of  Congress,  providing  for  the  reconstruction  of  Government  in  rebel 
States,"  a  period  at  which  examination  became  supererogatory,  as 
the  work  of  the  Louisiana  Convention  had  then  been  submitted  to  the 
vo$e  of  what  is  called  "  the  people  of  Louisiana,"  and  proclaimed 
adopted.  We  are  further  told  that  in  the  mean  time  "  no  attention 
was.  given  to  the  provisions  of  the  bill  for  reconstruction  of  govern- 
ment in  seceding  States,  and  but  little  interest  was  manifested  in 
legislation  on  that  subject." 

This  inattention  to  a  question  that  was  worthy,  in  itself,  of  the 
deepest  reflection,  arose  from  the  fundamental  difference  •  of  opinion 
which  exists  between  Congress  and  the  President  in  relation  to  their 
respective  powers  over  the  subject  of  the  reorganization  of  civil  gov-^ 
ernment  in  the  insurrectionary  States.  The  President  pretends  to  the 
right,  in  his  military  character,  as  commander-in-chief,  to  organize 
State  Governments  designed  to  survive  the  war,  and,  in  the  mean 
time  possessing  the  right  to  participate  in  the  government  of  the 
country  by  sending  Senators  and  Representatives  to  Congress,  and  to 


To  Hon.  Henry  Winter  Davis. 


3 


cast  votes,  as  States,  in  the  presidential  election.  This  power,  the 
Constitution  and  Courts  of  the  country,  have  declared  does  not  exist  in 
the  executive  department,  but  belongs  exclusively  to  Congress.  Gen. 
Banks  adopts  in  its  fullest  extent  the  presidential  idea,  saying,  "  no 
declaration  of  war  can  be  made  without  consent  of  Congress,  but  once 
waged  by  its  order,  it  cannot  restrict  the  power  of  the  President  as 
commander  in  chief."  Giving  this  language  its  full  meaning,  would  place 
the  President  above  all  law,  and  render  the  deliberations  and  acts  of 
Congress  useless  in  time  of  war;  but  limiting  the  application  of  the 
language  to  the  subject  matter  of  debate,  it  plainly  means,  that  when 
the  President  choses  to  order  a  Maj-General  to  organize  a  State  Gov- 
vernment  in  a  State  in  insurrection,  his  power  to  do  so  is  supreme, 
though  exercised  against  the  will  of  Congress.  Such  a  doctrine  is  of 
the  most  dangerous  character,  and  it  is  to  be  hoped  will  not  be 
adopted  by  the  Representatives  of  the  Nation.  It  is  not  to  be  sup- 
posed that  a  reconstruction  bill  in  Congress  would  attract  much  of 
the  attention  of  the  military  department,  when  such  views  of  the 
power  of  the  Commander-in-Chief  were  entertained. 

The  whole  course  of  proceedings,  then,  in  regard  to  the  reorganiza- 
tion of  civil  government  in  Louisiana,  must  be  judged  under  the 
knowledge,  that  their  managers  conscientiously  believed  that  the 
President,  in  his  military  capacity,  was  the  sole  master  of  the  situa- 
tion, and  that  his  will  alone  was  the  law  of  the  case. 

The  will  of  the  President,  however,  is  not  exclusively  relied  on,  and 
General  Banks  endeavors  to  show  that  his  action  in  "  Louisiana 
corresponds  completely  to  the  requisition  of  Congress." 

To  this  portion  of  his  letter  it  is  necessary  to  devote  some  atten- 
tion. An  account  of  what  was  actually  done  in  Louisiana,  so  far 
as  it  can  be  examined  from  an  outside  point  of  view,  will  convince 
you  that  neither  the  provisions  of  the  act  of  Congress,  nor  the 
Constitution  and  laws  of  the  State  of  Louisiana,  supposing  them 
to  be  in  force,  were  complied  with. 

The  act  of  Congress  contemplates  a  civil  organization  :  what  was 
done  here  is  purely  military.  The  first  section  of  the  act  of  Congress 
directs  the  appointment  by  the  President  of  a  provisional  Governor 
by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate.  The  provisional 
Governor  of  the  State  of  Louisiana,  Mr.  Hahn,  was  appointed  by  the 


3(70329 


4 


Letter  of  Thomas  J.  Durant 


President  alone  and  in  his  military  capacity,  and  as  far  as  the  letter 
of  appointment  shows,  without  the  concurrence  of  any  member  of 
his  cabinet. 

The  second  section  of  the  act  provides  that  the  reorganization  of 
the  state  government  shall  commence  only  when  "  the  military  resis- 
tance to  the  United  States  shall.have  been  suppressed  in  the  State.'7 
So  far  from  that  happy  condition  having  been  achieved,  the  rebels 
had  undisputed  control  of  far  more  than  half  the  territory  of  the 
State,  during  the  whole  time  of  these  proceedings.  The  same  section  of 
this  act  also  provides  that  the  Marshal  of  the  United  States,  (a  civil 
officer)  shall  make  an  enrolment  of  citizens,  preparatory  to  a  procla 
mation  of  the  provisional  Governor,  calling  upon  the  loyal  people  of 
the  State  to  elect  delegates  to  a  Convention,  to  declare  the  will  of  the 
people,  as  to  the  re-establishment  of  a  State  Government. 

The  third  section  of  the  act  provides  that  the  convention  shall  con- 
sist of  as  many  members  as  both  Houses  of  the  last  Constitutional 
State  Legislature,  to  be  apportioned  by  the  provisional  Governor  among 
the  counties,  parishes  or  districts  of  the  State,  in  proportion  to  the 
white  population  returned  as  electors  by  the  Marshal,  &c. 

On  this  point  General  Banks  says  :  "  delegates  to  the  Convention 
were  apportioned  to  the  white  population,  not  of  enrolled  electors 
merely,  but  of  the  whole  State,  and  the  number  fixed  as  prescribed 
by  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  State  applicable  to  Legislative 
Assemblies.'7 

You  may  a^sk  why,  in  the  above  paragraph,  is  the  expression, 
"enrolled  electors,"  put  in  apposition  to  the  words  "the  whole 
State"?  It  is  because,  in  only  a  part  of  the  State  were  electors  en- 
rolled: for  in  thegreater  number  of  parishes,  no  enrollment  was  made, 
nor  was  any  possible,  as  they  were  under  the  control  of  the  rebel 
government;  notwithstanding  which,  an  election  was  gravely  ordered, 
to  be  held  in  every  parish  of  the  State,  though  impossible  to  be 
effected;  and  a  convention  assembled  under  this  order  which  pur- 
ported to  represent  all  the  parishes. 

On  the  11th  January,  1864,  General  Banks  issued  a  proclamation 
"to  the  people  of  Louisiana,"  which  said,  "  In  pursuance  of.  authority 
vested  in  me  by  the  President  of  the  United  States,"— which  it  must 


To  Hon.  Henry  Winter  Davis.  5 

be  remembered  was  military  authority  only—"  and  upon  consultation 
with  many  representative  men  of  different  interests,  being  fully  as 
sured  that  more  than  a  tenth  of  the  population  desire  the  earliest 
possible  restoration  of  Louisiana  to  the  Union,  I  invite  the  loyal  citi- 
zens of  the  State  qualified  to  vote  in  public  affairs,  as  hereinafter  pres- 
cribed, to  assemble  in  the  election  precincts  designated  by  law,  or  at 
such  places  as  may  hereafter  be  established,  on  the  22nd  day  of  Feb- 
ruary, 1864,  to  cast  their  votes  for  the  election  of  State  officers  herein 
named.  1.  Governor.  2.  Lieut.  Governor.  3.  Secretary  of  State. 
4.  Treasurer.  5.  Attorney  General.  6.  Superintendent  of  Public 
Instruction.  1.  Auditor  of  Public  Accounts— who  shall,  when  elected, 
for  the  time  being,  and  until  others  are  appointed,  by  competent 
authority,  constitute  the  civil  government  of  the  State,  under  the 
Constitution  and  laws  of  Louisiana,  except  so  much  of  the  said  Consti- 
tution and  laws  as  recognize,  regulate,  or  relate   to  slavery,  &c." 

Two  capital  errors  must  be  considered  in  this  declaration.  In  the 
first  place  the  military  power  of  the  United  States  is  only  competent 
for  military  purposes,  and  cannot  constitute  a  civil  government  of  a 
State;  and  in  the  second  place  no  such  officers  elected  in  such  a  way 
could  be  a  civil  government  under  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  Louis- 
iana; because  those*  enactments  pointed  out  an  entirely  different 
mode  for  the  election  of  officers.  The  result  of  the  action  prompted 
by  General  Banks'  proclamation,  was  in  accordance  with  these  views; 
the  form  of  election  which  was  gone  through  with  was  considered 
by  the  President  merely  as  the  indication  of  a  fit  and  proper  person 
for  the  office  of  military  Governor,  and  the  Commander  in  Chief  of  the 
Army  and  Navy  conferred  an  informal  appointment  of  that  character 
upon  Mr.  Hahn,  who  had  been  returned  as  having  received  a  major- 
ity of  the  votes  cast  at  that  election.  The  commencement  and  the 
end  therefore  were  purely  military,  and  partook  in  no  degree  of  a 
civil  character. 

On  the  11th  of  March,  1864,  General  Banks  issued,  from  his  Head 
Quarters,  Department  of  the  Gulf,  "  General  Orders  No.  35."  They 
said  :  "  An  election  will  be  held  on  Monday,  the  28th  day  of  March, 
at  9  o'clock,  a.  m.,  in  each  of  the  Election  Precincts  established  by 


6 


Letter  of  Thomas  J.  Durant 


law  in  this  State,  for  a  choice  of  Delegates  to  a  Convention  to 
be  held  for  the  revision  and  amendment ;  of  the  Constitution  of 
Louisiana." 

One  might  suppose  from  this,  that  there  was  no  opposition  to  the 
authority  of  the  United  States  in  Louisiana  ;  and  that  to  hold  an 
election  in  each  of  the  precincts  established  by  law  in  the  State,  was 
a  matter  that  no  Union  man  would  hesitate  to  undertake.  Yet, 
the  fact  was,  that  in  more  than  one-half  of  all  the  Parishes  of  the 
State  no  avowed  adherent  of  the  National  cause  could  be  found.  It 
will  be  observed  that  this  Order  is  for  a  revision, of  the  Constitution 
existing,  which  harmonizes  with  the  prior  Proclamation  of  the 
General,  declaring  the  Constitution  and  Laws  of  the  State  (except 
such  as  related  to  slavery)  to  be  in  force.  The  second  section  of  the 
General  Orders  No.  35  declares  that  "  the  several  Parishes  shall  be 
entitled  to  elect  the  number  of  Delegates  herein  assigned  to  each,  upon 
the  basis  of  white  population  exhibited  by  the  Census  of  1860,  to  be 
chosen  in  each  Parish,  on  one  ticket,  by  the  qualified  voters  of  the 
Parish,  except  in  the  Parish  of  Orleans,  in  which  Parish  the  election 
shall  be  held  in  the  several  representative  districts  established  by 
law,  for  the  number  of  Delegates  herein  assigned  to  each  District,  to 
be  chosen  on  one  ticket  by  the  qualified  voters,  of  the  District,  as 
follows,  to-wit  :f  then  going  on  to  name  each  one  of  the  forty-eight 
Parishes  of  the  State,  stating  the  white  population  of  each  from  the 
Census  of  1860,  and  assigning  to  each  its  number  of  Delegates  in  the 
Convention  ;  making  an  aggregate  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  members, 
of  which  sixty-three  were  assigned  to  the  parish  and  city  of  New 
Orleans. 

This  was  done  under  a  distinct  declaration  that  the  Constitution 
and  Laws  of  Louisiana — except  in  regard  to  slavery — were  in  force  ; 
and  is  followed  by  the  statement,  in  the  letter  to  Senator  Lane,  that. 
"  the  number  of  Delegates  was  fixed  as  prescribed  by  the  Constitution 
and  Laws  of  the  State,  applicable  to  Legislative  Assemblies." 

The  Constitution  of  Louisiana  of  1852,  article  8,  says  :  "Repre- 
sentation in  the  House  of  Representatives  shall *be  equal  and  uniform 
and  shall  be  regulated  and  ascertained  by  the  total  population  of  each 
of  the  several  Parishes  of  the  State." 


To  Hon.  Henry  Winter  Davis. 


Article  15  says — "The  Legislature  in  every  year  in  which  they 
shall  apportion  Representatives  shall  divide  the  State  into  Senatorial 
Districts.  No  Parish  shall  be  divided  in  the  formation  of  a  Senatorial 
District — the  Parish  of  Orleans  excepted." 

Thus  the  constitutional  basis  of  representation  in  both  branches  of 
the  General  Assembly  of  Louisiana  was  the  total  population — white 
and  black — of  each  parish  ;  while  General  Orders  No.  35,  make  the 
basis  of  representation  in  the  Convention,  the  white  population  only. 

The  article  8  of  the  Constitution  further  says:  "  the  first  enumera- 
tion by  the  State  authorities  under  this  Constitution  shall  be  made 
in  the  year  1853,  the  second  in  1858,  the  third  in  1865." 

"  At  the  first  regular  session  of  the  Legislature  after  the  making  of 
each  enumeration,  the  Legislature  shall  apportion  the  representation, 
among  the  several  Parishes  and  election  Districts,  on  the  basis  of  the 
total  population  as  aforesaid.  A  representative  number  shall  be  fixed, 
and  each  parish  and  election  district  shall  have  as  many  representa- 
tives as  its  aggregate  population  shall  entitle  it  to,  and  an  additional 
representative  for  any  fraction  exceeding  one-half  the  representative 
number.  The  number  of  Representatives  shall  not  be  more  than  one 
hundred,  nor  less  than  seventy." 

Article  15,  also  says  :  "The  number  of  Senators  shall  be  thirty-two, 
and  they  shall  be  apportioned  among  the  Senatorial  Districts  accord- 
ing to  the  total  population  contained  in  the  several  districts  :  Pro- 
vided, that  no  Parish  shall  be  entitled  to  more  than  five  Senators." 

The  number  of  Senators  is  fixed  at  thirty-two;  the  number  of 
Representatives  may  vary,  at  the  will  of  the  Legislature,  from  seventy 
to  one  hundred. 

After  the  enumeration  of  1858,  the  Legislature,  by  an  act,  approved 
March  4,  1859,  divided  the  State  into,  twenty-one  Senatorial  Districts, 
electing  thirty -two  Senators,  of  which  five  were  assigned  to  the  city  of 
New  Orleans ;  it  adopted  a  representative  number  of  six  thousand 
nine  hundred  and  twenty,  and  apportioned  ninety-eight  representa- 
tives among  the  forty-eight  parishes,  assigning  to  the  city  of  New 
Orleans  twenty,  and  to  the  remainder  of  the  parish— lying  on  the  right 
bank  of  the  river — one, 


Letter  of  Thomas  J.  Durant 


The  General  Orders  No.  35,  established  a  representative  number  of 
two  thousand  two  hundred  and  fifty-one,  and  the  basis  of  the  white 
population.  The  Constitution  and  laws  of  Louisiana  established  a 
representative .  number  of  six  thousand  nine  hundred  and  twenty 
and  the  basis  of  the  total  population. 

The  General  Orders  No.  35,  assigned  to  New  Orleans  city  and 
parish  sixty-three  Delegates  ;  the  constitution  and  laws  of  Louisiana 
gave  them  twenty-six. 

By  General  Orders  No.  35,  the  Convention  was  to  be  composed  of 
one  hundred  and  fifty  Delegates.  By  the  constitution  and  laws  of 
Louisiana,  it  should  have  consisted  of  one  hundred  and  thirty  mem 
bers  only. 

Thus  General  Banks's  order  for  the  election  of  Delegates  to  the 
Constitutional  Convention  was  an  absolute  departure  from  the 
Constitution  and  laws  of  the  State,  and  in  plain  contradiction  of  the 
Act  of  Congress. 

He  apportioned  the  representation  on  the  white  population  only, 
instead  of  the  whole. 

He  ordered  one  hundred  and  fifty  members  to  be  elected  to  the 
Convention  instead  of  one  hundred  and  thirty. 

He  obliterated  the  Senatorial  Districts  and  the  legal  provision  for 
their  representation. 

He  gave  New  Orleans  sixty-three  Delegates  instead  of  twenty-six. 

He  essentially  changed  the  representation  of  the  other  parishes. 

Nor  was  all  this  done  without  deliberation.  Before  issuing  General 
Orders  No.  35,  he  appointed  a  committee  consisting  of  Rufus  K. 
Howell,  Alfred  Shaw  and  James  Ready,  three  citizens  of  New 
Orleans,  "  to  consider  the  questions  connected  with  the  calling  a 
State  Convention  and  the  election  of  Delegates."  In  their  report  to 
the  General,  made  on  the  3d  March,  1864,  the  Committee  say,  their 
attention  was  directed  hy  him  to  the  following  questions  : 

1.  The  basis  of  representation. 

2.  The  election  of  Delegates  by  districts,  or  by  general  ticket. 

3.  The  census  upon  which  the  election  of  Delegates  is  to  be  appor- 
tioned to  the  various  parishes  of  the  States, 


To  Hon,  Henry  Winter  Davis. 


9 


4.  The  number  of  Members. 

5.  The  number  of  people  to  be  represented  by  each  represen- 
tative. 

6.  The  apportionment  to  each  District. 

1.  The  question  of  residence — that  is,  whether  a  Delegate  must 
necessarily  be  a  resident  of  the  District  for  which  he  is  chosen. 

Now,  inasmuch  as  all  these  questions  were  definitively  settled 
by  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  Louisiana,  proclaimed  to  be  in 
force,,  the  fact  that  the  Major  General  Commanding  referred  their 
solution  to  a  committee,  showed  that  he  did  not  intend  to  be  bound 
either  by  law  or  Constitution.  The  report  of  the  committee  solved 
most  of  the  questions  in  a  sense  contrary  to  the  Constitution  and  the 
laws,  and  their  report  was,  in  its  leading  features,  adopted  by  the 
Major  General  and  embodied  in  his  General  Orders  No.  35  ;  and 
therefore,  he  cannot  but  be  in  error  in  saying  that  the  Constitution 
and  laws  were  followed. 

Although'  the  General  Orders  No.  35  directed,  as  has  been  seen, 
an  election  of  Delegates  in  each  of  the  fo^ty-eight  parishes  of  the 
State,  yet  it  was  well  known  that  in  a  majority  of  parishes  no  elections 
could  be  held.  Accordingly  the  third  paragraph  of  said  Orders 
states  that  lt  Any  parish  not  now  within  the  lines  of  the  army  shall 
be  entitled  to  send  Delegates  as  herein  specified,  at  any  time  before 
the  dissolution  of  the  Convention,  should  such  parish  be  brought 
within  the  lines  of  the  army  which  is  an  acknowledgment  that  the 
programme  announced  could  not  be  carried  out,  though  silence  is 
preserved  as  to  the  real  extent  of  this  impracticability. 

When  the  Convention  assembled  in  New  Orleans,  on  the  6th 
April,  "  S.  Wrotnoski,  Secretary  of  State,"  reported  that  members 
had  been  returned  as  elected  from  the  following  parishes — the 
number  of  votes  in  the  parishes  not  being  given — viz  :  Orleans, 
Ascension,  Assumption,  East  Baton  Rouge,  West  Baton  Rouge, 
Concordia,  East  Feliciana,  Jefferson,  Lafourche,  Madison,  Plaquemines, 
St.  Bernard,  St.  James,  St.  John  the  Baptist,  St.  Mary,  Terrebonne — 
(see  journal  of  the  Convention  pp.  3  and  4) — in  all  sixteen  parishes  out 
of  the  forty-eight  into  which  the  State  is  divided.  The  number  of 
Delegates  as  thus  returned  was,  from  the  parish  and  city  of  New 

2 


10 


Letter  of  Thomas  J.  Durant 


Orleans,  sixty-three  ;  from  the  fifteen  other  parishes  twenty-seven, 
making  a  total  of  ninety  ;  and  of  these  eighty-two  answered  to  their 
names  on  roll-call. 

On  the  7th  April,  the  Committee  on  Credentials  reported  as  duly 
elected,  not  only  the  Delegates  from  the  Parishes  reported  by  the 
Secretary  of  State,  "  but  also,  two  from  the  Parish  of  .Avoyelles  and 
four  from  the  Parish  of  Rapides,"  increasing  the  number  of  parishes 
said  to  be  represented  to  eighteen  ;  and  the  number  of  members 
entitled  to  seats  to  ninety-six  ;  but  the  number  who  voted,  the  same 
day,  on  the  election  of  a  President  of  the  Convention  was  only 
eighty-four. 

The  vote  in  the  Convention  on  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  as  a 
i  whole,  was  in  the  aggregate  eighty-two,  of  which  sixty-six  were  in  the 
affirmative,  and  sixteen  in  the  negative — see  journal  p.  165;  and  as  the 
whole  number  of  Delegates  ordered  to  be  elected  by  "  General  Orders 
No.  35"  was  one  hundred  and  fifty,  and  as  a  quorum  to  do  business 
consisted  of  not  less  than  seventy-six,  it  appears  the  Constitution 
was  finally*  adopted  by  a  vote  less  by  ten  than  a  quorum,  and  only 
equal  to  the  number  of  Delegates  from  New  Orleans,  with  three 
Delegates  from  the  country  ;  so  that  New  Orleans  and  Jefferson, 
which  are  as  closely  allied  as  New  York  and  Brooklyn,  were  enough 
to  constitute  this  "  regenerated"  State. 

On  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Enrolment,  the  number  of  mem- 
bers who  signed  the  Constitution  was  only  sixty,  being  sixteen  less 
than  a  quorum.    See  Journal,  p.  1*10. 

The  Convention  has  not  been  dissolved,  a  resolution  having  been 
adopted,  sixty-two  to  fourteen — a  bare  quorum — to  re-assemble  again 
in  certain  contingencies — same  page. 

One  curious  feature  may  be  noticed  here,  although  not  strictly 
within  the  scope  of  the  present  branch  of  the  inquiry.  On  the  last 
day  of  the  sitting  of  the  Convention,  Mr.  Fish  offered  a  series  of  patri- 
otic and  loyal  resolutions,  referring  in  a  preamble  to  the  Secession 
Convention  and  its  treasonable  Ordinance  of  separation  ;  and  declar- 
ing, 1st,  that  the  people  denounce  the  doctrine  of  State  Rights  and 
sovereignty,  interpreted  as  a  justification  of  secession  ;  2d,  declaring 
a  primary  allegiance  to  the  United  States,  and  that  the  ordinance  of 


To  Hon.  Henry  Winter  Davis. 


secession  was  a  nullity;  3d,  declaring  the  desire  of  the  Convention  that 
Slavery  should  be  abolished  through  the  whole  country  by  an  amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  These  excellent  reso- 
lutions were,  indeed,  adopted,  but  by  only  sixty-eight  in  the  affirmative 
and  eight  in  the  negative;  thus  showing  that  not  even  a  number 
equal  to  a  bare  quorum  of  the  Convention  could  be  found  to  endorse* 
the  principles  laid  down. 

On  recurring  to  the  report  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  and  to  that  of 
the  Committee  on  Credentials  above  referred  to,  it  will  be  found  that 
S.  A.  Lobdell  is  returned  as  elected  from  the  Parish  of  West  Baton 
Rouge,  but  he  never,  as  I  am  informed,  appeared  in  the  Convention. 
It  is  difficult  to  understand  how  an  election  could  have  been  held  in 
that  parish,  or  in  Avoyelles,  Rapides  or  Madison,  nor  have  the  public 
ever  had  any  official  information  on  that  subject.  Certain  it  is,  how- 
ever,  that  when  the  Constitution  was  submitted  to  the  popular  vote 
for  ratification,  no  votes  were  cast,  according  to  the  Proclamation  of 
Governor  Halm  of  19th  September,  1864,  in  the  parishes  of  West  Baton 
Rouge,  Avoyelles  or  Rapides,  either  for  or  against  the  Constitution;  so 
that  no  election  could  be  held  at  that  time  in  these  parishes  which  it 
was  maintained  had  sent  seven  members  to  the  Convention.  On  the 
other  hand,  by  the  same  Proclamation  of  the  19th  September,  it  is  de- 
clared that  the  question  of  ratification  was  voted  upon  in  the  parishes 
of  Pointe  Coupee,  St.  Martin,  St.  Charles,  Iberville  and  St.  Landry, 
though  those  parishes  were  not  returned  as  having  elected  any  mem* 
bers  to  the  Convention,  and  no  members  sat  in  it  from  those  parishes. 

It  is  said  by  General  Banks,  in  further  enlarging  upon  the  regular- 
ity of  proceedings  that  "Commissioners]  of  Election  have  been  ap- 
pointed according  to  the  laws  and  usages  of  the  State.'" 

In  this,  it  seems  to  me,  there  is  also  an  error.  The  statute  of  March 
19,  185t,  provides  for  elections  in  the  parish  and  city  of  New  Orleans. 
It  directs  that  the  election  precincts,  at  that  time  established  by  law 
in  New  Orleans,  should  not  be  changed  except  by  an  Act  of  the  Le- 
gislature, and  that  there  should  be  two  election  precincts  in  each 
ward  of  the  city,  except  the*seventh,  in  " which^there^should  be  three. 
The  act  further  provided  for  the  creation  of  a  Board  of  Comm'  loners 
of  Election,  to  be  composed  of  the  Mayor  of  the  City  of  New  Orleans, 


1 2  Letter  op  Thomas  J.  Durant 

the  Register  of  Voters  of  said  city,  the  Attorney  General  of  the  State, 
and  two  citizens  of  New  Orleans  to  be  appointed  by  the  Governor  of 
the  State.  The  duty  of  this  Board  was  declared  to  be  to  appoint  all 
the  Commissioners  of  Election,  to  preside  in  the  various  precincts  of 
the  city  established  by  law. 

No  such  Board  of  Commissioners  as  the  law  contemplates  existed 
here.  It  is  true  a  body  of  five  citizens  called  a  Board  of  Commission- 
ers of  Elections,  was' in  being,  but  none  of  them  were  appointed  ac- 
cording to  law.  They  were  B.  L.  Lynch,  Esq.,  Attorney  General,  J.  R. 
Terry,  Register  of  Voters,  S.  Hoyt,  Mayor,  Charles  Leaumont  and  E- 
Ames,  citizens  of  New  Orleans. 

B.  L.  Lynch,  Esq.,  Attorney  General,  was  elected  under  the  niili" 
tary  order  of  the  Major  General  commanding  the  Department  of  the 
*Gulf;  he  was -not  therefore  elected  according  to  the  Constitution  and 
laws  of  Louisiana,  which  have  nothing  to  do  with  military  officers  in 
election  matters.  Mr.  Lynch  therefore  holds  office  from  the  military 
powers  of  the  United  States,  not  from  the  laws  of  Louisiana;  he  is 
not  a  civil  officer  of  the  State. 

J.  R.  Terry  holds  his  office  of  Register  of  Voters  for  New  Orleans 
by  the  appointment  of  M.  Hahn,  Governor.  Mr.  Hahn  is  not  and 
cannot  be  civil  Governor  of  Louisiana,  for  he  was  elected  under  the 
military  order  of  General  Banks,  who  has  no  power  under  the  Consti- 
tution and  laws  of  the  State  to  order  elections. 

The  article  11  of  the  Constitution  of  Louisiana,  declared  by  General 
Banks  to  be  in  force  except  in  regard  to  slavery,  says:  "  The  Legis- 
lature shall  provide  by  law  that  the  names  and  residence  of  all 
qualified  electors  in  the  city  of  New  Orleans  shall  be  registered,  in 
order  to  entitle  them  to  vote." 

The  act  of  March  20th,  1856,  p.  131,  section  1,  says  that  there  shall 
be  appointed  by  the  Governor  of  this  State,  by  and  with  the  advice  of 
the  Senate,  for  four  years  from  the  fourth  Monday  of  January,  1856,  a 
discreet  citizen  of  the  city  of  New  Orleans  as  Register  of  the  names 
and  residence  of  the  qualified  electors  of  said  city."  The  law  is,  that 
a  civil  Governor  shall  make  the  appointment  by  and  with  the  advice 
of  the  Senate.  The  fact  is  that  the  Register  is  appointed  by  a 
miltary  Governor  without  a  Senate.    Mr.  Terry  then  is  simply  a 


To  Hon.  Henry  Winter  Davis, 


military  appointee  to  register  voters.  He  is  not  a  Register  of  Voters 
according  to  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  Louisiana. 

S.  Hoyt,  the  Mayor  of  the  city,  is  a  purely  military  appointment, 
placed  in  office  by  the  Major  General  commanding,  the  charter  of  the 
city,  requiring  the  election  of  a  Mayor  by  the  people,  having  been 
totally  disregarded. 

Messrs.  Leaumont  and  xlmes,  the  two  citizens  on  the  board,  having 
been  selected  by  one  who  has  no  authority,  except  as  military  Gover- 
nor, have  no  powers  derived  from  the  laws  of 'the  State;  and  are 
therefore  no  such  members  of  the  Board  of  Commissioners  as  the  law 
requires. 

It  is  clear,  that  such  a  Board  as  this  could  make  no  pretension  to 
be' organized  according  to  -law,  and  therefore  no  commissioners  ap- 
pointed by  it  would  be  "legal,"  in  the  true  civil  meaning  of  the  " 
word;  they  would  derive  all  their  powers  form  the  military  authority 
of  the  United  States. 

The  Board  thus  constituted,  proceeded  to  perform  the  acts  required 
by  the  laws  of  the  State. 

On  the  29th  of  August,  1864,  the  aforesaid  Board  of  Election  Com- 
missioners met,  and  prepared  a  publication  in  the  usual  form,  con- 
taining a  list  of  the  precincts,  the  number  of  polls  in  each  precinct 
and  the  names  of  the  commissioners  of  election  for  each  poll  to  be 
held  for  the  election  of  5th  September,  on  which  day  the  Constitution 
was  to  be  submitted  to  the  popular  vote;  when  also  in  pursuance  of 
an  ordinance  of  the  Convention,  five  members  of  Congress  were  to  be 
chosen;  and  under  a  proclamation  issued  on  the  30th  day  of  July, 
1864,  by  "  J.  Madison  Wells,  Lieutenant  and  acting  Governor  of  the 
State  of  Louisiana,"  members  of  the  General  Assembly  were  also  to 
be  chosen.  The  publication  of  the  .Board  of  Commissioners,  signed 
by  their  Secretary,  Charles  Ldaumont,  appeared  in  the  New  Orleans 
papers  on  the  31st  August,  and  it  designated  only. those  polls  and 
precincts  which  were  established  by  law. 

But  on  the  4th  September,  the  day  preceding  the  election,  the 
publication  was  changed,  and  four  more  polls,  not  established  by  law, 
were  added,  and  styled  poll  No.  3,  first  precinct,  corner  of  Terpsichore 
and  Chippewa;  poll  No.  3,  second  precinct,  corner  of  Euphrosyne 


14 


V 

Letter  of  Thomas  J.  Due  ant 


and  Calliope;  poll  No.  3,  Ninth  precinct,  corner  of  Robertson  and 
Canal  streets;  and  poll  No.  3,  seventeenth  precinct,  Lakehouse. 
This  changed  advertisement  was  put  over  the  signature  of  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Board,  Charles  Leaumont,  as  though  it  were  an  official 
act. 

On  the  26th  September,  a  letter  having  been  addressed  to  the  Sec- 
retary, Mr.  Leaumont,  by  E.  Abell,  Esq.,  one  of  the  candidates  for 
Congress,  enquiring  by  what  authority  these  four  additional  polls  had 
been  created  and  advertised,  Mr.  Leaumont  deemed  it  proper  to  call 
a  meeting  of  the  Board,  which  was  accordingly  held  on  the  5th  of 
October,  all  the  members  being  present  except  S.  Hoyt,  the  acting 
Mayor  of  New  Orleans  under  military  appointment,  when  on  con' 
sidering  Mr.  Abell's  enquiry,  "  the  Secretary  was  ordered  tot  answer 
that  the  notices  and  changes  which  he  observed,  creating  four  other 
polls,  more  specifically  described  in  his  communication,  though  put 
over  the  official  signature  of  the  Secretary  of  said  Board,  was  not  the 
act  of  said  Board,  as  they  had  no  meeting  or  action  taken  on  the 
matter  after  the  meeting  of  the  29th  of  August,  1864,  at  which  meet- 
ing no  reference  was  made  to  the  opening  or  creation  of  any  other 
polls  but  those  designated  hi  the  act  of  1857. 

And  now  as  a  part  of  these  minutes  the  Secretary  being  called 
upon  to  account  for  this  unathorized  change,  made  by  the  creation  of 
the  above  named  four  polls,  as  published  in  the  Bee  and  Era  of  the 
3rd  September,  1864,  over  his  officiarsignature,  solemnly  pronounces 
it  to  have  been  done  without  his  consent,  will  or  knowledge,  and  says 
that  at  the  time  of  the  above  change  appearing  in  the  papers,  he, 
along  with  Dr.  Ames,  upon  being  informed  of  that  fact,  did  then  and 
there  protest." 

Such  are  the  official  proceedings ~  of  the  Board,  They  speak  for 
themselves.  Their  official  publication  had  been  perverted  and  falsi- 
fied, none  of  those  present  appeared  to  know  by  whom.  When  such 
things  can  be  done  with  success,  what  assurance  or  guarantee  have 
the  people  of  fairness  in  the  election  ?  or  how  can  it  properly  be  said 
that  such  an  election  was  conducted  according  to  the  laws  of  the 
State  ? 


To  Hon.  Henry  Winter  Davis. 


15 


By  the  official  returns  of  the  election  published  in  the  True  Delta  of 
September  1th,  it  appears  that  the  following  votes  were  polled  at  the 
four  extra  legal  polls  interpolated  upon  the  advertisement  of  the 
Board  of  Commissioners,  on  the  question  of  the  adoption  of  the 
Constitution. 

.Poll    No.    3,    First    Precinct  343 

Poll    No.    3,    Second     do   29 

Poll    No.    3,    Ninth       do   145 

Poll  No.  3,  Seventeenth  do  (none  reported,) 

511 

These  votes  were  not  cast  according  to  the  Constitution  and  laws  of 
Louisiana. 

The  General,  in  his  letter  to  Senator  Lane,"  further  says,  "the 
Delegates  were  chosen  by  white  male  citizens  of  the  United  States, 
21  years  of  age,  who  had  the  qualifications  required  by  law." 

"  Soldiers  who  had  enlisted  in  the  Army  from  this  State  were  per- 
mitted to  vote  at  the  polls  opened  at  their  respective  commands  by 
regular^  appointed  Commissioners  of  Elections,  not  by  Officers, 
where  it  was  impossible  for  them  to  vote  in  established  legal 
Precincts." 

The  General  pays  a  just  tribute  to  the  merits  of  the  soldiers  who 
have  enlisted  from  this  State,  when,  in  another  part  of  his  letter 
he  says — 

"Nearly  ten  thousand  white  troops,  and  fifteen  thousand  colored 
soldiers  have  been  enlisted  here  in  the  armies  of  the  Union.  They 
are  among  the  best  men  of  the  service.  Every  battle  field  from  the 
Rio  Grande  to  Port  Hudson  and  Florida  has  been  honored  by  their 
valor  and  hallow.ed  by  their  blood." 

Every  patriot  will  say  with  the  General,'  all  honor  to  the  brave 
soldiers  of  Louisiana.  These  twenty-five  thousand  men  were  as  well 
entitled  to  participate  in  the  reorganization  of  civil  government  as  any 
other  equal  body  of  men  to  be  found  ;  fifteen  thousand  of  them  were, 
.most  likely,  all  native  citizens  of  the  United  States.  But  by  the  laws 
of  Louisiana,  which  alone  are  in  question  here,  not  one  of  the  twenty- 
five  thousand  was  a  qualified  elector.  The  12th  Article  of  the 
Constitution  says  :   "  No  soldier,  seaman  or  marine,  in  the  Army  or 


16  Letter  op  Thomas  J.  Durant 

Navy  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  at  any  election 
in  this  State." 

How  many  soldiers  voted,  no  means  are  at  hand  to  ascertain  ;  their 
votes  are  not  distinguished  from  others  in  any  official  report. 

The  qualifications  of  voters  are  prescribed  by  the  10th  Article  of 
the  Constitution  of  Louisiana  of  1852,  which  says  :  "  Every  free  white 
male  who  has  attained  the  age  of  twenty-one  years,  and  who  has 
been  a  resident  of  the  State  twelve  months  next  preceding  the 
election,  and  the  last  six  months  thereof  in  the  Parish  in  which  he 
offers  to  vote,  and  who  shall  be  a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  shall 
have  the  right  of  voting." 

In  the  city  of  New  Orleans,  it  is  required  that  the  voter  shall  be 
registered  more  than  three  days  before  the  election,  as  during  the 
three  days  preceding,  the  Office  of  the  Register  must  be  closed. 

The  Constitution  submitted  to  vote  on  the  5th  September,  in  defining 
the  qualifications  of  electors,  in  Article  14,  makes  no  change  in  the 
above  except  as  to  residence  in  the  Parish,  which  is  reduced  to  three 
months. 

It  is  publicly  stated,  and  by  many  believed,  in  New  Orleans,  that 
persons  were  registered  as  voters,  who  had  resided  only  six  months 
in  the  State,  and  one  month  in  the  Parish,  and  this  too  without  proof 
of  citizenship.  I  have  seen  a  statement  to  this  effect  sworn  to  before 
a  Justice  of  the  Peace  by  one  who  was  a  clerk  in  the  Registers'  office, 
but  have  no  means  of  ascertaining  what  number  of  voters  were  so 
registered  ;  however,  if  the  statement  be  true,  of  which  I  have  no 
doubt,  the  registration  was  illegal,  and  the  whole  subject  ought  to  be 
subjected  to  a  satisfactory  investigation. 

Enough  has  been  shown,  in  what  goes  before,  to  demonstrate  that 
the  laws  of  Louisiana  with' regard  to  elections  have  not  been  complied 
with,  but  that  there  have  been  departures  from  them  of  the  most 
essential  character. 

The  Act  of  Congress  of  the  last  session,  which  the  President  did  not 
sign,  provided  that  at  elections  "no  person  who  has  held  or  exer- 
cised any  office,  Civil  or  Military,  State  or  Confederate,  under  the  rebel 
usurpation,  or  who  have  voluntarily  borne  arms  against  the  United 
States,  shall  vote  or  be  eligible  to  be  elected  as  Delegate  at  such  elec- 


To  Hon.  Henry  Winter  Davis. 


tion."  And  in  reference  to  this  feature  General  Banks'  letter  says — 
"  so  far  as  is  known  no  person  who  has  held  office  under  the  Confede- 
rate Government,  or  who  has  borne  arms  against  the  United  States, 
has  participated  in  these  elections." 

This  does  not  appear  to  meet  the  difficulty.  Congress  desired  these 
persons  to  be  excluded  from  voting,  and  serving  in  the  Convention. 
The  rules  adopted  on  the  subject  of  the  call  of  the  Convention  in 
Louisiana  made  no  provision  for  excluding  them  either  as  Voters  or 
Delegates,  As  the  vote  was  by  ballot,  no  means  are  now  at  hand  of 
knowing  whether  any  such  voted  at  the  elections.  But  it  is  known 
that  several  who  would  have  been  excluded  by  the  Act  of  Congress, 
held  seats  as  Delegates  in  the  Convention. 

Nor  is  any  such  exclusion  as  the  above  extract  from  the  Act  of 
Congress  provides  for,  embodied  in  the  new  Constitution  of  Louisiana. 
The  reason  of  this  omission  is  explained  by  General  Banks'  letter. 
He  says — "  The  only  provision  of  the  bill  not  embodied  in  the  Consti- 
tution is  that  which  denies  the  elective  franchise  to  men  who  have 
borne  arms  against  the  United  States.  The  Convention  would  have 
readily  adopted  this  provision,  but,  although  the  State,  under  the 
Constitution,  establishes  the  condition  of  suffrage  even  for  Members 
of  Congress,  it  was  impracticable  for  Louisiana,  to  overthrow  the 
policy  of  the  General  Government  in  this  respect.  The  principal 
officer  in  the  Treasury  in  New  Orleans,  held  a  commission  in  the 
Rebel  army,  and  the  Quarter  Master  and  the  Chiefs  of  other  Depart- 
ments have  been  ordered  to  employ  in  public  services  deserters  from 
the  enemy." 

There  appears  to  be  an  error  in  this  statement  ;  the  policy  of  the 
General  Government  cannot  be  held  to  be  such  as  is  declared,  for  the 
Act  of  Congress,  the  only  means  we  have  of  ascertaining  its  policy, 
is  entirely  different.  The  policy  of  the  Executive,  may  be  correctly 
stated  by  General  Banks,  but  the  Executive  is  not  the  General  Govern- 
ment ;  and  the  reason  assigned  for  the  omission  of  the  Convention,  is 
therefore  insufficient.  This  difference  between  the  Act  of  Congress  and 
the  new  Louisiana  Constitution  is  of  an  important  character.  Under 
the  Act  of  Congress  it  is  designed  to  put  the  State  government  in 
the  hands  of  the  real  friends  of  the  Union,  whereas,  if  the  govern- 

/  3 


18 


Letter  of  Thomas  J.  Durant 


ment  of  the  new  Constitution  could  be  spread  over  the  whole  State, 
there  is  danger  that  the  result  would  be  of  quite  another  kind. 

The  entire  want  of  compliance  with  the  forms  required  by  the 
Constitution  and  laws  of  Louisiana,  in  the  various  orders  and  elections 
which  have  preceded  the  formation  of  this  Constitution  have  been 
insistedon,  not  merely  on  account  of  their  own  importance,  but  be- 
cause the  attempt  is  made  to  recommend  the  instrument  to  favor  by 
alleging  that  these  forms  have  been  complied  with. 

The  far  weightier  objections  are,  that  all  these  movements  were 
impelled  by  mere  Military  authority  ;  that  the  resulting  Constitution 
is  no  more  than  a  Military  rescript  ;  that  the  whole  proceedings  has 
been  in  opposition  to  the  will  of  Congress,  which  alone,  possesses  the 
constitutional  power  to  act  on  the  subject ;  that  not  one-half  of  the 
Parishes  or  Territory  of  the  State  had  any  thing  to  do,  even  nomi- 
nalty,  with  the  Elections  or  the  Convention  ;  and  that  of  that  portion 
of  the  State,  which  did  participate,  there  is  nothing  to  guide  us  but 
uncertain  conjecture  as  to  the  amount  of  population  ;  that  the  Pa- 
rishes nominally  represented  in  these  elections  and  the  Convention 
are  only  partially  controlled  by  the  National  arms;  and  that  no  satis- 
factory census' of  their  population,  whereon  to  base  represention  in  a 
Covention,  has  been  taken. 

General  Banks,  devotes  a  portion  of  his  letter  to  an  estimate  of  the 
population  of  the  State.  On  this  subject,  it  must  be  premised  that 
if  the  rebellion  of  the  State  has  produced  no  change  in  its  relations  to 
the  General  Government,  if  its  Constitution  survived,  and,  without  any 
enabling  Act  of  Congress,  the  citizens,  or  a  fractiion  of  their  number 
can  send  Senators  and  Representatives  to  Congress,  aad  cast  an 
electoral  vote  for  President,  then  the  question  of  population  becomes 
of  no  importance,  for  no  matter  how  much  it  may  have  been 
reduced,  the  rights  of  the  State  to  representation  under  the  census 
remain  unimpaired,  unless  the  causes  effecting  that  reduction  have  also 
changed  the  relations  of  the  State. 

But  if  such  be  not  the  condition  of  the  political  relations  of  the  in- 
habitants of  Louisiana,  if  the  State  has  forfeited  its  rights  by  rebel- 
lion, as  we  believe,  then  there  must  be  an  enabling  act,  and  an  enu- 
meration of  the  people,  not  conjectural  but  actual. 


To  Hon.  Henry  Winter  Davis. 


19 


General  Banks  says:  "the  statement  that  Louisiana  does  not  control 
half  the  population  or  half  the  territory  of  the  State  is  very  far  from 
being  true." 

Let  us  examine  the  question.  The  Constitution  framed  by  the  Con 
vention  assembled  under  General  Orders  No.  35,  was  submitted  to  a 
vote  of  the  people  of  "this  State",  on  the  first  Monday  of  September 
1864. 

On  the  nineteenth  of  the  same  month  Mr.  Hahn,  Military  Governor 
of  Louisiana,  issued  a  Proclamation,  declaring  the  official  vote  "cast 
in  the  State,  as  far  as  received  for  and  against  the  Constitution  ac- 
cording to  returns  received  at  the  office  of  the  Secretary  of  State,"  to 
be  as  follows  : 

FOR,  AGAINST. 

Orleans  .....4,662  ..  789 

Pointe  Coupee   65    85 

St.  Martin....   34  — 

St.  Mary   99    — 

Jefferson   328  .  ..124 

Plaquemines   47    70 

St.  Bernard   31   118 

St.  Charles   30   7 

St.  John  the  Baptist   9   — 

St.  James   —   7 

Ascension   239   27 

Assumption   210   9 

Lafourche   247   70 

Terrebonne   258   213 

Iberville   26   2 

East  Baton  Rouge   104   35 

East  Feliciana   159    5 

St.  Landry   32    — 

Concordia   247   ,   — 

Madison   9  ■   — 


6,836  1,566 
In  looking  at  this  table,  it  is  found,  that  the  vote  in  favor  of  the  Con- 
stitution in  Orleans,  is  greater  than  the  aggregate  of  all  other  votes, 
both  for  and  against  the  Constitution,  so  that  the  State  is  made  by 
the  city  alone,  and  would  have  been  so  made  had  every  vote  outside 
of  it,  been  "unanimously  cast  against  the  Constitution.  Now  it  is  pre- 
cisely in  New  Orleans,  there  is  the  strongest  reason  for  believing  that 
influence  and  patronage  carried  the  election,  and  where  a  Congres- 


20 


Letter  of  Thomas  J.  Durant 


sional  investigation  would  most  probably  show  that  the  majority  con 
sisted  of  electors  who  were  not  duly  qualified,  and  that  the  influences 
at  work  overpowered  dissent. 

When  you  look  for  the  above  named  parishes  on  the  map,  you  will 
findthemall,  except  St.  Martin,  St.  Mary,  Assumption,  Lafourche, 
Terrebonne  and  St.  Landry  (six  in  all),  lying  on  both  sides  of  the 
Mississippi  river;  and  inquiry  will  assure  you  that  in  most  of  those 
above  Jefferson,  but  little  more  is  possessed  by  us,  than  the  immediate 
bank  of  the  river ;  while  in  regard  to  St.  Martin,  St.  Mar}7-  and  St.  Lan- 
dry you  will  not  find  that  we  control  one  half  of  either. 

The  following  statement  of  the  area  of  each  of  the  above  named 
parishes,  except  Orleans,  is  drawn  from  Lippincott's  Gazeteer,  pub- 
lished in  1855,  which  is  believed  to  be  substantially  correct. 

SQUARE  MILES. 


Orleans  (estimated  from  Latourette's  Map)   180 

Pointe  Coupee   600 

St.  Martin   750 

St.  Mary   860 

Jefferson   3  384 

Plaquemines  900 

St.  Bernard   >   620 

St.  Charles  340 

St.  John  the  Baptist   200' 

St.  James   330 

Ascension  420 

Assumption  320 

Lafourche  1,200 

Terrebonne  1640 

Iberville  45(1 

East  Baton  Rouge   500 

East  Feliciana   480 

St.  Landry   .  .2,200 

Concordia  ■   790 

Madison  . .  .  . .   640 


13,804 

Now  the  whole  area  of  the  State  of  Louisiana,  according  to  the  Amer- 
ican Almanac,  Boston,  1861,  is.  41,346 

Deduct  the  above  Parishes  13,804 


Leaves  ,  27,542 


Showing  that  the  area  of  all  the  parishes  which  voted  on  the  Con- 


To  Hon.  Henry  Winter  Davis. 


21 


stitution  does  not,  in  the  aggregate,  much  exceed  one  third  of  the  en- 
tire area  of  the  State,  and  of  this  portion  we  have  not  the  actual  con- 
trol of  more  than  a  half,  even  if  so  much. 

1  It  is  impossible  for  any  one  to  say,  with  accuracy,  what  the  popu- 
lation of  Louisiana  is,  at  the  present  time.  It  might  be  taken  as  a  fair 
presumption  that  it  has  decreased  in  about  equal  proportions  in  all 
parts  of  the  State,  and  in  that  case,  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  po- 
pulation is  under  the  dominion  of  the  rebel  Governor  x\llen. 

The  letter  of  General  Banks  controverts  this  theory  of  equal  dimi- 
nution of  the  population  and  insists  that  the  decrease  has  been  greater 
outside  of  the  Union  lines  than  inside  :  a  conjecture  which  may  be 
right  or  wrong,  but  nothing  else  than  an  enumeration  can  determine 
which  it  is. 

According  to  the  United  States  Census  of  1860  and  the  Report  of  the 
State  Auditor  of  Public  Accounts  made  to  the  Legislature  of  Louisi- 
ana in  January  1862,  the  population  of  those  parishes,  which  according 
to  Governor  Hahn's  Proclamation  recently  voted  on  the  Constitution, 
was  as  follows  : 

u.  s.  census  1860.         s.  census  1861. 

Orleans  174,491   137,228 

Pointe  Coupee  17,718    16,359 

St.  Martin   12,674    15,065 

St.  Marv  16,816    16,757 

Jefferson   15,372    13,717 

Plaquemines.......   8,494    11,243 

St.  Bernard   4,076    3,427 

St.  Charles   5,997    4,792 

St.  John  the  Baptist   7,930    7,216 

St.  James   11,499    Il,5d8 

Ascension   11,484    11,143 

Assumption   15,379   14,607 

Lafourche   14,044    13,768 

Terrebonne   12,091    10,788 

Iberville   14,601   15,833 

East  Baton  Rouge   16,046    15,704 

East  Feliciana   14,697    14,294 

St.  Landry   23,104    26,423 

Concordia   13,805    13,238 

Madison   ....  14,133    \   13,190 


423,811  386,360 
The  above  will  show  the  inaccuracy  of  what  purports  to  be  official 


22  Letter  or  Thomas  J.  Durant 

censuses,  taken  within  a  few  months  of  one  another.  Let  us  take  as 
our  basis  the  United  States  Census.    As  the  total  population  by 

that  was  100,802 

Deduct  the  above  Parishes. . .  423,811 


276,991 

This,  at  the  first  glance,  admitting  the  population  to  have  remained 
unchanged,  would  seem  to  show  a  large  majority  within  the  par- 
ishes which  voted  on  the  Constitution.  But  this  appearance  will  van 
ish  when  it  is  considered,  that  in  a  number  of  those  parishes,  though 
real  or  pretended  elections  may  have  been  held  in  some  points  of 
them,  yet  that  the  control  of  our  forces  does  not  extend  over  a  third 
of  their  territory;  such  are  : 


Point  Coupee .......  t .   1*7,1 18 

St.  Martin  12,674 

St.  Mary.............   16,816 

Iberville   .  14,661 

East  Baton  Eouge   ,   16,046 

East  Feliciana...   14,697 

St.   Landry  23,104 

Concordia  12,805 

Madison....  14,133 


143,654 

Of  these  Parishes,  we  do  not  hold,  on  the  average,  one-third  of 
the  area;  but  assuming  that  proportion,  then  the  population  being 
unchanged,  we  would  have  a  right  to  count  one  third  of  it,  i.  e,, 
47,884  as  within  our  lines,  leaving  95,770  outside,  which,  deducted 
from  the  aggregate  of  the  twenty  Parishes  above,  leaves  328,157, 
less  than  one  half  of  the  population  of  1860. 

I,  of  course,  am  well  aware  that  the  pupulation  has  not  remained 
unchanged;  and  I  am  equally  well  convinced  that  the  proportions 
are  not  such  as  are  stated,  but  that,  in  point  of  fact,  there  is  a 
much  smaller  proportion  within  the  Union  lines  than  allowed 
above  :  all  which  serves  to  show  that,  as  a  preliminary  to  organi- 
zation, a  trustworthy  census  should  be  taken. 

I  now  give  the  votes  cast  in  these  twenty  Parishes  in  the  Presi= 
dential  election  of  1860,  and  in  the  vote  for  the  ratification  of  the 
Constitution  in  1864. 


To  Hon.  Henry  Winter  Davis. 


2S 


The  vote  of  1860  is  taken  from  the  New  Orleans  Crescent,  Decem- 
ber 4th,  of  that  year,  and  that  of  1864,  from  the  New  Orleans  True 
Delta  of  22nd  September. 

1860  1864 


Orleans  10,867  5,451 

Point  Coupee                         890   'l50 

St.  Martin   1,188  .   34 

St.  Mary                                 942   104 

Jefferson   1,588   452 

Plaquemines                             448   1J1 

St.  Bernard                             281   149 

St.  Charles                             163  ,   31 

St.  John  Baptist                      392     9 

St.  James                                560   1 

Ascension                               179   266 

Assumption   1,022   219 

Lafourche  -   1,047   .  317 

Terrebonne                             965   411 

Iberville                                 865    28 

East  Baton  Rouge   1,195    139 

East  Feliciana                         785   164 

St  Landry....*.,..   1,866   32 

Concordia                                332   247 

Madison                                  519   9 


26,694  8,402 

Now,  admitting  all  the  votes  proclaimed  as  having  been  cast  on 
the  5th  September  last  to  be  genuine,  which  many  are  very  far 
from  beleiving,  compare  the  vote  of  1864  with  that  of  1860,  and 
we  find  the  former  is  not  one  third  of  the  latter  :  and  if  we  should 
suppose  that  the  vote  in  the  whole  State — the  Convention  election 
was  ordered  to  take  place  in  every  Parish — has  fallen  off  in  the 
same  ratio  as  in  the  above  named  Parishes,  then  the  vote  in 
Parishes  where  no  election  was  held  on  the  5th  September  last, 
would  be  found  to  be  7,530,  making  an  aggregate  of  (by  supposi- 
tion) 15,932  votes  in  the  entire  State  at  this  time.  This  result, 
however,  is  entirely  inconsistent  with  what  I  believe  to  be  the  facts 
of  the  case,  and  also  with  the  estimates  contained  in  Gen.  Banks's, 
letter. 

That  letter  tells  us  that  from -forty-two  to  forty-five  thousand  men 
have  enlisted  from  Louisiana  in  the  rebel  armies.  His  sources  of 
information  are  probably  correct  ;  and  if  all  these  were  voters, 


Letter  of  Thomas  J.  Durant 


there  would  be  left  only  eight  thousand  in  the  State,  as  the  total 
vote  polled  on  the  Presidential  election  of  1860  was  50,510, 
whereas  there  must  be,  according  to  the  estimate  made  above, 
nearly  sixteen  thousand.  So  that  it  is  impossible  to  arrive  at  any 
satisfactory  conclusion  either  as  to  the  number  of  voters  or  the  popu- 
lation by  any  estimate  or  conjecture.  This  becomes  more  apparent 
when  we  learn  further  from  the  General's  letter,  that  ten  thousand  . 
white  men  have  enlisted  in  the  National  Army,  making  a  total  en- 
listment (by  supposition)  in  the  two  Armies  of  fifty-two  to  fifty- 
five  thousand  men,  far  more  than  the  whole  number  of  voters  in 
1860  ;  and  yet  when  these  are  disposed  of,  for  the  forty-two  to  forty- 
five  thousand  rebel  soldiers  or  voters  are  all  out  of  the  State,  we  still 
have  some  sixteen  thousand  left;  such  results  demonstrate  the  fatal 
errors  of  the  estimate  and  must  serve  to  convince  all,  that  no 
means  have  been  adopted  to  ascertain  with  reasonable  accuracy  the 
number  of  electors  in  the  State  and,  and  not  even  of  that  portion  of 
them  within  the  Union  lines,  or  which  can,  in  any  degree  be 
deemed  satisfactory  by  one  who  seeks  correct  or  safe  results. 

General  Banks  avows  the  belief  that  from  forty-two  to  forty-five 
thousand  men,  most  of  whom  he  says  were  politicians — meaning  I 
presume  voters — left  the  State  as  soldiers  in  the  rebel  Army.  That 
one-fourth  of  the  slaves  have  perished  ;  and  as  the  whole  number 
by  the  census  of  1850  was  331,726  ;  the  number  who  have  thus  dis- 
appeared is  87,931.  That  a  number  of  negroes,  equal  to  the  rebel 
enlistments,  accompanied  their  master  or  fled  with  their  owners 
to  surrounding  States.  And  that  the  dimunition  of  the  white  popu- 
lation is  nearly  equal  to  the  loss  among  the  blacks.  If  I  rightly 
understand  the  General,  then,  he  estimates  a  total  decrease  of  popu- 
lation in  the  State  of  265,862:  but  this  is  not  his  complete  meaning, 
for  he  says  immediately  afterwards,  that  the  entire  population  of 
the  State  at  the  present  time  is  451,000,  of  which  number  he  thinks 
that  two  thirds  are  within  the  Union  lines.  Two  thirds  of  the 
number  stated  are  300,700,  about;  and  leaves  only  150,300,  in  the 
remainder  of*  the  State;  such  estimates  are  not  supported  by  any 
sound  conjectures,  and  even  if  they  were  are  not  a  proper  basis  to 
place  reconstruction  upon.  If  there  are  really  such  large  number 
of  persons  now  within  our  lines  how  is  it  that  the  Constitution  re" 


To  Hon.  Henry  Winter  Davis.  25 


ceived  so  meagre  a  vote  as  8,402,  when  it  is  pretended  we  have  a 
population  of  300,100  ? 

But  while  these  estimates  are  claimed  by  General  Banks  to  be 
correct,  we  find  a  Convention  assembled  under  his  General  Orders 
No.  35,  assuming  the  powers  of  a  Legislature,  dividing  the  whole 
State  into  five  Congressional  Districts,  as  if  they  controlled  it  all,  and 
actually  causing  to  be  elected  five  members  of  Congress,  the  number 
to  which  only  the  total  Census  population  of  708,002  was  entitled; 
when  the  electors  in  all  of  them  did  not  reach,  at  the  election  of  5th 
September,  1864,  eight  thousand  three  hundred. 

On  the  whole  an  impartial  examination  of  the  statements  of  General 
Banks  in  regard  to  the  populatian  of  Louisiana,  will  fail  to  bring  con- 
viction to  the  mind  of  their  accuracy.  They  are,  indeed,  mere  conjec- 
tures. They  may  possibly  be  right,  but  they  are  probably  wrong,  as 
many  here  believe.  The  nation  cannot  and  ought  not  to  permit  the 
Executive,  by  military  orders,  to  substitute  conjectures  for  facts;  or 
to  cut  the  knot  with  the  sword. 

Louisiana  is  not  a  State  in  the  constitutional  sense  of  that  word. 
Her  relations  with  the  Government  of  the  United  States  have  been 
broken  by  rebellion.  She  is  a  State  in  insurrection;  so  decreed  by 
Act  of  Congress,  which  the  Executive  cannot  do  away  with.  By  the 
same  power  of  Congress  she  must  be  reconstructed  and  readmitted, 
on  such  terms  and  conditions  as  may  be  found  consistent  with  justice 
and  safety. 

The  foregoing  remarks  are  devoted  to  a  consideration  of  objects  un- 
connected with  the  intrinsic  merits  of  the  Constitution  itself;  these, 
however,  General  Banks,  has  been  pleased  to  speak  of  in  terms  of  high 
laudation. 

Some  of  these  claims  to  exalted  praise  are  worthy  to  be  examined. 
General  Banks'  letter  says,  speaking  of  the  Convention  :  "And  what 
was  the  result  of  their  labors  ?" 

"In  a  State  which  held  331,126  slaves,  one  half  of  its  population  in 
1860,  more  than  three  quarters  of  whom  had  been  specially  excepted 
from  the  operation  of  the  Proclamation  of  Emancipation,  and  were 
still  held  de  jure  in  bondage,  the  Convention  declared  by  a  majority 

4 


26  Letter  of  Thomas' J.  Durant 

of  all  the  votes  to  which  the  State  would  have  been  entitled,  if  every 
Delegate  had  been  present  from  every  District  in  the  State  : 

"  Instantaneous,  universal,  uncompensated,  unconditional  emanci- 
pation of  slaves." 

The  slave  population  above  stated  is  less  than  one  half  of  the  total 
population  in  1 860. 

The  slaves  in  the  parishes  excepted  from  the  operation  of  the  Presi- 
dent's Emancipation  Proclamation  of  January  1,  1863,  are  stated  in 
the  Census  to  be,  in 


St.  Bernard   2,240 

Plaquemines   5,385 

Jefferson   5,120 

St.  John  the  Baptist,   4,594 

St.  Charles   4,182 

St.  James. .  v   8,090 

Ascension  , .  1,316 

Assumption      8,096 

Terrebonne   6,785 

Lafourche  ,   6,395 

St.  Mary  13,051 

St.  Martin   1,358 

Orleans  14,484 


93,162 

Such  was  the  number  excepted  by  the  President  from  emancipa- 
tion :  while  the  whole  number  in  the  State  was  331, 126  :  so  that  far 
from  there  having  been  two  thirds  of  the  whole  number,  excepted  from 
emancipation,  there  was  but  little  more  than  one  fourth  of  the  whole 
number  left  in  slavery. 

On  page  74  of  the  official  Journal  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Conven- 
tion is  found  the  vote  on  the  adoption  of  the  report  of  the  Committee 
on  Emancipation.  It  there  appears  that  there  were  in  the  affirmative 
seventy-two  votes  and  in  the  negative,  thirteen.  The  next  day  two 
more  votes  were  added  to  the  affirmative,  making  seventy-four.  The 
whole  number  of  members  of  which  the  Convention  was  ordered  to 
consist  was  one  hundred  and  fifty,  of  which  seventy-six  was  a  bare 
majority,  and  also  a  quorum.  Now,  neither  seventy-two  votes,  nor  sev- 
enty-four were  "a  majority  of  all  the  votes  to  which  the  State  would 
have  been  entitled,  if  every  Delegate  had  been  present  from  every 
District  in  the  State,"     And  more  than  that,  there  were  Delegates 


To  Hon.  Henry  Winter  Davis. 


21 


present,  as  representing  parishes  in  which,  as  has  already  been  shown, 
no  vote  could  be  taken,  .when  the  Constitution  was  submitted  to  the 
people,  and  who  therefore  represented,  legally  speaking,  no  constitu- 
encies. 

The  seventy-two  or  seventy-four  Delegates,  who  voted  for  emancipa- 
tion, were,  no  doubt,  in  favor  of  the  measure,  but  at  the  same  time  it 
must  be  remembered  that  the  Convention  had  no  choice  in  the  matter. 

The  Convention,  Journal  page  3,  commences  in  these  words  

"  Wednesday,  April  6,  1864,  The  Convention  met  in  Liberty  Hall,  New 
Orleans,  at  12  m,  in  pursuance  of  paragraph  XI,  of  General  Orders 
No.  35,  of  Major  General  N.  P.  Banks,  the  Commanding  General  of 
the  Department." 

Those  general  orders,  with  the  proclamation  of  January  11,  were 
the  parent  of  the  Convention,  They  were  purely  Military  in  their 
authority. 

Martial  Law  had  been  proclaimed  in  the  Department  of  the  Gulf, 
on  May  1,  1864,  and  exists  up  to  the  present  day.  The  Proclamation 
of  Major  General  Banks  of  January  11,  1864,  paragraph  VI,  said  that, 
"  The  fundamental  law  of  the  State  is  Martial  Law." 

The  first  paragraph  of  the  same  proclamation  said  that  "  the 
constitution  and  laws  of  Louisiana,  which  recognize,  regulate  or  relate 
to  slavery,  must  be  suspended,  and  they  are  therefore,  and  hereby 
declared  to  be  inoperative  and  void." 

This  was  the  abolition  of  slavery  by  Martial  Law,  to  which  the 
Convention  itself  was  subject.  What  could  that  Body  do,  then,  but 
abolish  slavery,  if  they  touched  it  at  .all  ?  And  what  difference  would 
it  have  made  had  they  not  gone  through  the  form  of  abolishing  it  ? 
None  whatever,  as  all  laws  in  relation  to  it  had  already  been  declared 
void  by  a  power  superior  to  that  of  the  Convention.  They  only 
registered  a  decree,  and  can  claim  no  merit  for  the  ministerial  act. 
The  benefit  was  conferred  by  the  Commander  of  the  Department. 

The  letter  says  further  of  the  constitution.  "It  directs  all  men, 
white  or  black,  to  be  Enrolled  as  Soldiers,  for  the  public  defensa  ! 
It  makes  all  men  equal  before  the  law." 

The  latter  ought  to  be,  no  doubt,  the  consequence  of  the  former  ; 
but  is  it  made  so  ? 


28 


Letter  of  Thomas  J.  Durant 


If  the  assertion  is  intended  -  to  mean  that  men  are  made  by  the 
Constitution  politically  equal,  it  is  a  wide  error. 

The  14th  Article  of  the  Constitution  limits  the  right  of  suffrage  to 
"  white  males." 

By  the  8th  Article  only  "  qualified  electors"  are  eligible  to  the 
General  Assembly . 

By  Article  98,  all  Civil  Officers,  State  and  Parish  must  be  voters. 

The  whole  political  power  of  the  State  is  vested  exclusively  in  the 
white  citizens. 

On  page  Tl  of  the  Journal  of  the  Convention,  it  appears,  that  the 
Report  of  the  Committee  on  Emancipation  being  under  consideration, 
Mr.  Abell  offered  the  following  proviso  to  section  3d. 

"  Provided  always,  that  the  Legislature  shall  never  pass  any  Act 
authorizing  free  negroes  to  vote,  or  to  immigrate  into  this  State  under 
any  pretence  whatever." 

The  question  was  divided  at  the  words  "  to  vote,"  when  the  first 
clause  was  carried  by  sixty-eight  for,  to  fifteen  against. 

The  next  day,  the  debate  was  cut  off  with  the  amendments  by  the 
previous  question,  but  the  sense  of  the  Convention,  at  that  time,  as  to 
the  extension  of  the  suffrage  to  persons  of  African  descent  had  been 
expressed  by  an  emphatic  majority  against  it.  This  was  on  the  10th 
day  of  May,  1864. 

It  appears  a  change  was  produced  in  the  sentiments  of  the  Mem- 
bers of  the  Convention,  by  what  influence  is  not  publicly  known. 
On  the  23d  of  June,  Mr.  Gorlinski,  offered  the  following  as  an  addi- 
tional article  to  the  general  provisions,  as  follows  : 

"  The  Legislature  shall  have  power  to  pass  laws,  extending  the 
right  of  suffrage  to  such  persons,  citizens  of  the  United  States,  as  by 
Military  service,  by  taxation  to  support  the  Government,  or  by 
intellectual  fitness,  may  be  deemed  entitled  thereto."  This  was 
adopted  by  forty-eight  in  the  affirmative,  to  thirty-two  in  the  negative. 
See  Journal  p.  130.  It  is  understood  to  have  reference  to  persons  of 
African  descent,  but  is  ambiguous,  under  the  decision  in  the  Dred 
Scott  case.  • 

This  is  the  only  approach  towards  equality — another  word  for 
justice,  which  is  made  in  the  Constitution.     If  the  authors  of  tha 


To  Hon.  Henry  Winter  Davis.  29 

instrument  were  really  in  favor  of  the  principle,  why  did  they 
not  establish  it?  Can  it  be  supposed,  that  a  more  opportune  occa- 
sion will  ever  arrive,  or  one  where  there  will  be  more  generosity  or 
less  prejudice? 

Let  us  suppose,  that  the  Major  General  Commanding  the  Depart- 
ment of  the  Gulf,  had  called  a  Convention  consisting  exclusively  of 
Members  of  the  other  race— that  he  had  permitted  only  black  citizens 
of  the  United  States  to  vote—that  he  had  allowed  only  his  black 
soldiers  to  participate  in  the  election— and  that  the  Constitution  had 
allowed  only  blacks  to  vote  and  hold  any  office,  executive,  legislative 
or  judicial  ?  And  that,  he  had  proclaimed  this  as  establishing 
equality  before  the  law  ?  What  answer  would  the  white  citizens  have 
given  tojsuch  an  assertion  ?  It  is  easy  to  see,  and  equally  easy  to 
know,  that  a  clause  permitting  a  future  Legislature,  to  extend 
suffrage  to  whites,  would  hardly  have  been  deemed  very  satisfactory 
by  the  latter. 

The  Constitution  does  not  make  all  men  equal  before  the  law;  and 
no  such  claim  can  be  consistently  set  up  for  it. 

Seventy  five  years  ago  the  great  Apostle  of  American  democracy 
said  :  "With  what  execration  should  the  statesman  be  loaded,  who 
permitting  one  half  the  citizens  thus  to  trample  on  the  rights  of  the 
other,  transforms  those  into  despots,  and  these  into  enemies,  des- 
troys the  morals  of  the  one  and  the  amor  patriae  of  the  other.? 

There  are  other  objections  to  the  Constitution  which  are  rather  of 
a  moral  than  a  political  character,  but  equally  worthy  of  considera- 
tion. 

On  page  120  of  the  Journal  it  is  found  that  Mr.  Cutler  offered  the 
following,  as  one  of  the  general  provisions  of  the  Constitution  : 

"The  Legislature  shall  have  the  power  to  license  the  selling  of  lot- 
tery tickets  and  the  keeping  of  gambling  houses;  said  houses  in  all 
cases  shall  be  on  the  first  floor  and  kept  with  open  doors;  but  in  all 
cases  not  less  than  ten  thousand  dollars  per  annum  shall  be  levied 
as  a  license  or  tax  on  each  vendor  of  lottery  tickets  and  on  each  gam- 
bling house,  and  five  hundred  dollars  on  each  tombola." 


30 


Letter  of  Thomas  J.  Durant. 


This  was  adopted  by  a  vote  of  fifty  seven  to  twenty  three,  and  be- 
came article  116  of  the  Constitution.  It  is  believed  to  be  the  only  in- 
stance in  which  a  constitutional  Convention  has  approved  the  vice  of 
gambling.  Congress,  in  its  reconstruction  Act,  does  not  seem  to  have 
considered  this  feature,  but  would  probably  not  have  taken  the  same 
view  of  it  as  the  Convention.  It  is  probable,  too,  Congress  would 
have  differed  from  theview  taken  by  the  Convention  of  a  proper  or- 
ganization of  the  policeforce  in  New  Orleans;  for  it  may  be  found 
on  page  128  of  the  Journal,  that  when  the  police  question  was  before 
the  Convention,  "Mr.  "Thorpe  moved  to  amend  by  adding  the  words 
"and  no  one  shall  beappointed  on  the  police,  who  shall  have  been 
mustered  into  the  rebel  army";  and  this  was  laid  on  the  table  by  a 
vote  of  fifty  yeas  to  thirty  one  nays  ! 

It  is  not  difficult  to  make  a  good  Constitution,  we  have  so  many  to 
copy  from;  but  it  is  difficult  to  make  a  State  by  a  military  order.  Such 
a  consummation  cannot  be  effected  unless  we  are  to  see  an  American 
Congress  deliberately  abandon  its  functions,  under  Executive  dictation. 

I  remain,  most  respectfully, 

Your  obedient  servant, 

TBOMAS  J.  DURANT. 


Date  Due 

— OCT  4? 

• 

- 

Form  335— 40M— 8-39— S 

CALL  NUMBER 

Vol. 

Date  (for  periodical) 

Vf  5  (  u 

P.nnv  Nn 

976.3    D951L  370329 


